Commercialization of the Music Industry- How Much of this Will Happen to Video Games?

[shencereys]

2 hours ago, joemonco said:

 

Not a fan of Rogue-likes?

Those aren't made by AI, which is the point he was addressing.

 

But to this point, procedurally generated anything is usually hollow and devoid of creativity, except where the developers have specifically intervened (at level xyz npc abc will show up and offer n quests, which I have preformulated).  A pure roguelike with no human interventions would be essentially a slot machine with more interactive outcomes.  While those appeal to some, they don't to others.

 

I have played my fair share - dungeon crawl, FTL, Dwarf Fortress, and the appeal of the faux-randomness only goes so far as the creativity of the humans that designed the system. 

 

I also have no doubt that a true ai-intelligence could eventually create something original and creative as a human, but -as someone who has some small experience in this field- we are so far from this it's not even worth considering as a possibility.  Barring some unforeseen, incredible breakthroughs in both technology and theory we aren't even approaching this level of complexity in AI.  While of course I've seen many examples of AI performing specific tasks ('let's have it write a symphony in the style of Bach'), these tasks are all parlor tricks - they seem impressive until you've seen behind the curtain.  While we'll be able to do some very fantastic things very soon, creativity that isn't just a cleverly disguised perumuting heuristic is not in the cards for a very long time, due to the 'dumb' way we create AIs in the first place.

[KoolHndLuke]

4 hours ago, joemonco said:

 

Not a fan of Rogue-likes?

Not really. I play Civ 4-5 a lot and set up scenarios on a random map with random opponents and I usually have to go through at least ten or so of these before I even get an interesting map. If I put leaders like Napoleon or Gandhi in the game and they are on another continent- they always get ganged up on by other countries/leaders. The technology paths that the a.i. picks are predictable, etc. War strategies by computer opponents are very simplistic (attack this ONE city or area with overwhelming force and then sit there defending it with a 100 units for the rest of the game.- my culture will flip in so many turns anyway so the whole thing was pointless.

 

Put simply, no A.I. can simulate human creativity. Aspects of it maybe.

[dharvinia]

9 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

. Creativeness to a computer is just randomizing numbers, cold calculations to produce "art

What is on the way will change the world as much as the invention of electricity.   Artificial intelligence is in the fetus stage it is being tested daily right in front of our eyes.

When it comes into its own the rise will be exponential.  No, we will not see a terminator like scenario, Those developing it are trying to ensure they have complete control.

The applications are endless from farming, medicine, finance, and driving.  All shipping in the world could be handled by a single entity, it would treat this task as a single memory chip.

Driving is a simple as navigating from point A to B while avoiding obstacles totally within the realm of a supercomputer (or less)

 

a computer can learn, and duplicate at this point, but what will come will have the ability to "think" outside the box drawing on information pools that the human mind could not imagine.

it could combine techniques from all known art that has gone before and come up with something totally unique.    

[27X]

On 9/12/2018 at 4:05 AM, Jazzman said:

It's the age-old question on who actually controls existing markets, the producer or the consumer, taking into account that both factions are inhomogenous, driven by diverse motives and strategies to reach a single goal - (personal) profit. Now, it's far easier for the consumer to switch products and producer to react to changing conditions with a different 'diet make-up' strategy than for a producer to switch his limited product palette or the markets (i.e. class of customers) to adapt to change. Guess Bioware was the latest case of a respectable game developer (producer) shot off his high horse b/c of it. Arrogance and stupidity comes at a price on the markets. Always. And it goes both ways...

 

Flexibility matters.

Nope. As per usual there is not pat single sentence answer that defined what happened to BioWare when ME2 started I had 6 close friends working there, now I have two, and that wasn't anything that the public had anything to do with except in one instance where someone quite literally drank the purely only always political kool aid kinda like you do on occasion and quite literally lost his fucking mind, going from bro-dev to tumblrina snowflake ultimus maximus to the point where people that put "patriarchy smasher supreme" in their twitter handle cross the street to avoid having to talk to him and getting yelled at for not "fighting hard enough".

 

As for the rest, there's a very long and very recognizable chain of decisions and the ramification thereof that led to the current BioWare, and the linchpin decision had nothing to do with sales, it had to do with allowing scheduling restrictions to be put in place by people completely outside of the company. The moment someone who didn't work at BioWare began mandating release timing, the end was nigh, and this was when the Doctors still owned the company, and ME2's schizophrenic content quality reflected this, much less anything that followed.

 

Kinda like when Michael Jackson started thinking he was above Quincy Jones' tutelage and expertise cause he had sold 75 million albums and started listening to his sycophant lawyer for music advice.

 

While yes, you're right people could still prop up the company or artist under the weight of zeitgeist, that says jack shit about the working conditions or mindset of the people in the trenches, and without content creators, there is nothing for consumers to buy; so one side of the equation simply matters more, and always will, no matter what Wall Street or Michael Pachter wants to believe.

[Jazzman]

2 hours ago, 27X said:

Nope. As per usual there is not pat single sentence answer that defined what happened to BioWare when ME2 started I had 6 close friends working there, now I have two, and that wasn't anything that the public had anything to do with except in one instance where someone quite literally rank the purely only always political kool aid kinda like you do on occasion and quite literally lost his fucking mind, going from bro-dev to tumblrina snowflake ultimus maximus to the point where people that put "patriarchy smasher supreme" in their twitter handle cross the street to avoid having to talk to him and getting yelled at for not "fighting hard enough".

 

As for the rest, there a very long and very recognizable chain of decisions and the ramification thereof that led to the current BioWare, and the lynchpin decision had nothing to do with sales, it had to do with allowing scheduling restrictions to be put in place by people completely outside of the company. The moment someone who didn't work at BioWare began mandating release timing, the end was nigh, and this was when the Doctors still owned the company, and ME2's schizophrenic content quality reflected this, much less anything that followed.

 

Kinda like when Michael Jackson started thinking he was above Quincy Jones' tutelage and expertise cause he had sold 75 million albums and started listening to his sycophant lawyer for music advice.

 

While yes, you're right people could still prop up the company or artist under the weight of zeitgeist, that says jack shit about the working conditions or mindset of the people in the trenches, and without content creators, there is nothing for consumers to buy; so one side of the equation simply matters more, and always will, no matter what Wall Street or Michael Pachter wants to believe.

It's a widespread mistake (especially among the military) to believe that the (producing) subordinate would be dismissed when the die is cast and the shit hits the fan. The subordinate is the first to get sacrificed, not the 'share holder', the puppeteer, not EA, just sayin'. Cling together, swing together is for the most part wishful thinking.

 

People that spontaneously change their behavior don't define the current zeitgeist but act against it, eventually creating a new one in the process. That's the definition of change in the making in the first place.

 

So, either the producer reacts to massive changes in the markets caused by changing consumer behavior immediately or the company is history in the next fiscal year. Don't offer the impression as if consumer behavior that runs contrary to established company policy would eventually lead to an empty market w/o products. That's foolish. The consumer need didn't perhaps fade away, it just changed direction. The winner is who satisfies the needs. Follow the profit...

 

By the very reason we (among others, my family) deliver gmo-free beef to Russia as evil 'blockade runners' (O-tone EU faggots) and in this way took over former West-European market shares as the result of Western sanction policy. We weren't even measurably present on the Russian market before autumn 2014, nor intended to become in the near future. New ranches will be established by the Russians to satisfy their market needs, slowly but steadily, eventually trying to reduce our market share in Russia down to the status quo ante at the end of the day. It's causality. Like it or not.

 

So expect the same phenomenon on the gaming market in case of a trend reversal from below... minor companies that adapt become relevant and new ones will be founded. Old ones that don't adapt by means of arrogance go down the highway. Creative employees will be on the move, if you get my meaning.

 

Have a good one!

[joemonco]

On 9/12/2018 at 12:43 PM, shencereys said:

But to this point, procedurally generated anything is usually hollow and devoid of creativity, except where the developers have specifically intervened (at level xyz npc abc will show up and offer n quests, which I have preformulated).  A pure roguelike with no human interventions would be essentially a slot machine with more interactive outcomes.  While those appeal to some, they don't to others.

 

I don't know about that, the generated dungeons in Daggerfall were spectacular, the landscape not so much.  I think an AI could do better on both counts.

[KoolHndLuke]

16 hours ago, joemonco said:

 

I don't know about that, the generated dungeons in Daggerfall were spectacular, the landscape not so much.  I think an AI could do better on both counts.

Yeah, because the human programmers put all that stuff in the game and told the engine what to use out of a list- that they already knew would look/play good. An A.I. cannot determine or comprehend what looks "cool" on its own- only humans can determine that.

 

You can teach a computer how to make what some of us might consider "art", but, you sure as hell can't teach a computer how to appreciate it. See my point?

[joemonco]

Looked cool?  It looked like ass, brah.  It was just the last time you could get lost in a dungeon.